Ritter v. Griswold
| Decision Date | 14 November 1911 |
| Citation | 56 So. 860,2 Ala.App. 618 |
| Parties | RITTER v. GRISWOLD. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
On Application for Rehearing, December 14, 1911.
On Application for Rehearing.
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. C. Nesmith, Judge.
Action by Dave M. Griswold against Claude D. Ritter. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Gaston & Pettus and C. D. Ritter, for appellant.
J. L Drennen and J. S. Kennedy, for appellee.
The appellee brought suit in the court below against appellant on a claim for damages growing out of an assault and battery alleged to have been committed on the plaintiff by the defendant, and the trial was had before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The complaint, filed December 1, 1908, was in the Code form the defendant's name being stated as Claude B. Ritter. On December 23, 1908, and within the 30 days allowed for pleading under the act regulating pleading in the city court of Birmingham (act approved February 28, 1889 [Acts 1888-89 p. 995, § 5]), the defendant filed a plea of misnomer, setting up that his true name was not Claude B., but Claude D., Ritter. No demand for a jury was indorsed on this plea, and the record shows no ruling on the plea; but more than a year afterwards, on, to wit, the 19th day of May, 1910, the plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint, stating the name of the defendant to be Claude D. Ritter, as averred by defendant to be his true name in the plea of misnomer previously filed. The only minute entry shown by the record allowing an amendment to the complaint is as follows: "On this, the 15th day of February, 1910, this cause being reached on the docket and called for trial, came the parties by their attorneys, and the plaintiff, by leave of the court first had and obtained, amends his complaint herein as appears by a separate paper writing this day filed"--and refers to an amendment filed February 15, 1910. No amendment of that date appears in the record, but the record does show a plea of the general issue, filed by the defendant on February 15, 1910, upon which no indorsement appears to have been made, demanding a trial by jury. The first demand made by defendant for a jury trial, so far as is shown by the record, was indorsed on the general and special pleas filed by him May 19, 1910, after previously having filed a plea of the general issue on February 15, 1910.
The minute entry of May 19, 1910, recites: "It appearing to the court that in this case a jury has been waived as by the statute in such cases made and provided, the court proceeds to hear and determine this cause." No objection is shown to have been made by the defendant to the court's order or proceeding to try the case without a jury, nor was there any other insistence shown to have been made for a trial by jury, other than that made to appear by the indorsement on the pleas filed May 19, 1910.
The right to a trial by jury in such a case is a personal privilege, and, the statute providing the means by which defendant may avail himself of this privilege not having been complied with, he was not entitled to have the case tried by a jury. Act approved February 28, 1889, § 9; Knight et al. v. Farrell & Reynolds, 113 Ala. 259, 20 So. 974; Ex parte Ansley, 107 Ala. 613, 18 So. 242.
The statement by the witness Ward, to the effect that immediately upon regaining consciousness after being stricken Griswold asked what had happened, the court correctly admitted as part of the res gestæ. Nelson v. State, 130 Ala. 83, 30 So. 728; Hall v. State, 130 Ala. 45, 30 So. 422.
That the plaintiff had at some time previous to the difficulty in question made a derogatory remark about the defendant is not competent evidence, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 1 Div. 731.
... ... 547, 19 So. 180, 54 Am. St. Rep. 118; ... Burt v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 187 U.S. 362, 23 ... S.Ct. 139, 47 L.Ed. 216; Ritter v. Mut. Life Ins ... Co., 169 U.S. 139, 153, 154, 18 S.Ct. 300, 42 L.Ed. 693; ... Bindell v. Kenton County, etc., Ins. Co., 128 Ky ... 389, 108 ... civil action, for it is then in the nature of an admission of ... the facts. 31 A. L. R. 278, note; Ritter v. Griswold, 2 ... Ala. App. 618, 622, 56 So. 860; 57 A. L. R. 506, note; ... 80 A. L. R. 1147, note ... We note ... too that a judgment of ... ...
-
Industrial Tile, Inc. v. Stewart
...properly admitted in evidence as a declaration against interest. Motley v. Page, 250 Ala. 265, 34 So.2d 201 (1948); Ritter v. Griswold, 2 Ala.App. 618, 56 So. 860 (1911). We find no error to reverse, particularly in light of the admonition given the jury by the trial judge that it was not t......
-
Deacon v. Commonwealth
... ... though 20 minutes after the accident occurred, was admitted ... as a part of the res gestæ. In the case of Ritter v ... Griswold, 2 Ala. App. 618, 56 So. 860, a witness, who ... had been assaulted, asked immediately upon regaining ... consciousness what had ... ...
-
Pritchett v. Freeman, 7 Div. 118
...The judgment was full and complete and was shown to be for the same assault. Motley v. Page, 250 Ala. 265, 34 So.2d 201; Ritter v. Griswold, 2 Ala.App. 618, 56 So. 860. Defendant insisted the docket sheet showed it had been altered by drawing a line through the words 'not guilty' and writin......